The thing is, hot air is just that.
I actively _dislike_ RFC's. If it needs discussion, you're planning too
far ahead. "Just do it" is my approach, and never EVER overdesign. If
something is so subtle that it needs lots of discussion, it's going to be
so subtle that you get it wrong on the first try anyway, so it should
start out with a trial implementation rather than a lot of talking.
I much prefer a incremental change over too much discussion. It may not
ever become "perfect", but quite frankly, you'll never reach that state by
discussing it either.
> Does this look reasonably? Should I write some more detailed description
> or some code?
Code.
> I'd also like to know your opinion on the PCI patches I've sent you a week
> ago -- please tell me what you'd like me to fix and I'll change it and update
> the whole thing to the most recent kernel.
I'll integrate the ISA PnP patches (which I have now), and will release a
2.3.14. That's going to change some things - unlike PCI, we have multiple
IRQ and DMA channels etc, so the "pci_dev" is getting expanded. I'd love
to rename it, but the only obvious name is "struct device" which has been
stolen by network device drivers.
The network drivers should really have "struct net_device", and maybe a
nice awk-script will take care of it.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/